To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?

[Rat Catcher]

Personally I'd prefer ships left where players log out, that way at least it makes you park sensibly.

I just think it is hilarious that this same argument never, ever, stops...

Persistent ships? Why not? I'm certain that the first day would be even saltier than the usual "Hotel California" thread.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I just think it is hilarious that this same argument never, ever, stops...

Persistent ships? Why not? I'm certain that the first day would be even saltier than the usual "Hotel California" thread.

It would, but it would provide consistency and actual consequences for how you conduct yourself.

I mean, you'd need to find a safe harbour, secluded spot and power down (so only by seeing you by eye would work).

Its like with FCs, they should be hackable to nick goods in the hold, so people won't leave them all over the place and parking them in dodgy places is risky.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Only by some, obviously

Pretty much by those who believe everything in the game should be 'open only'?

That "house-rule" has been adopted by many mixed-modes (PvE/PvP) squadrons to preserve reputation.

Of course something we are not going to read on this sub, but in the hundreds of Discord servers, reddits, etc.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It would, but it would provide consistency and actual consequences for how you conduct yourself.

I mean, you'd need to find a safe harbour, secluded spot and power down (so only by seeing you by eye would work).

Its like with FCs, they should be hackable to nick goods in the hold, so people won't leave them all over the place and parking them in dodgy places is risky.

Which would provide opportunities for players unknown to attack offline players with impunity - so it's hardly surprising that Frontier decided to make Carriers invulnerable when they made them pan-modal and persistent.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Which would provide opportunities for players unknown to attack offline players with impunity - so it's hardly surprising that Frontier decided to make Carriers invulnerable when they made them pan-modal and persistent.

But by doing that players just leave them anywhere and nothing can make them leave, like some greedy thrombus.

Things like secure storage should really be that; a place that no-one can get to but is very limited. The rest is fair game (especially since FCs come with full station weapons).

 

[Rat Catcher]

That "house-rule" has been adopted by many mixed-modes (PvE/PvP) squadrons to preserve reputation.

Of course something we are not going to read on this sub, but in the hundreds of Discord servers, reddits, etc.

My squadron has no rules... As an anarchy supporter...

But, if the 'boys' in the other squadrons insist a legal exit is not, that is up to them, surely?

 

[Robert Maynard]

But by doing that players just leave them anywhere and nothing can make them leave, like some greedy thrombus.

Making them vulnerable to player attack would likely reduce their number - as players, in general, would not find that to be "fun" gameplay. That might suit the agenda of some players - however the howls of protest when those players who still had a Carrier were attacked when they weren't playing or even, heaven forbid, by players who don't instance with them (for whatever reason), would be insufferable.

Things like secure storage should really be that; a place that no-one can get to but is very limited. The rest is fair game (especially since FCs come with full station weapons).

Some players like the idea of pillaging other players assets when they can't retaliate - Frontier doesn't seem to share that view.

 

[Andruxich]

But by doing that players just leave them anywhere and nothing can make them leave, like some greedy thrombus.

Things like secure storage should really be that; a place that no-one can get to but is very limited. The rest is fair game (especially since FCs come with full station weapons).

I wish we had a base building in Elite like For PMF as a squadron. Or make stations raidable, but very dangerous(walk inside not only in bar , but storage et cetera.) Destruction and damaging station due to wars(Like carry 10000 letal weapory onto megaship for it participate in station battle)... Ah, sweet dreams.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Making them vulnerable to player attack would likely reduce their number - as players, in general, would not find that to be "fun" gameplay. That might suit the agenda of some players - however the howls of protest when those players who still had a Carrier were attacked when they weren't playing or even, heaven forbid, by players who don't instance with them (for whatever reason), would be insufferable.

Well, if you are not carrying anything you can't suffer- and to be honest it would set up far more gameplay with heists (simply because of the logistics involved).

If it reduced the number then another win as well, considering FD took the worst aspects and bolted them together.

Some players like the idea of pillaging other players assets when they can't retaliate - Frontier doesn't seem to share that view.

FCs are armed like stations, and firepower is far beyond that of a capital ship. Its not exactly defenseless, and comes surrounded by that systems police as well. A T-9 trying to hack the main cargo bay is going to be stung pretty hard....station lasers having reverb and all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, if you are not carrying anything you can't suffer- and to be honest it would set up far more gameplay with heists (simply because of the logistics involved).

If it reduced the number then another win as well, considering FD took the worst aspects and bolted them together.

FCs are armed like stations, and firepower is far beyond that of a capital ship. Its not exactly defenseless, and comes surrounded by that systems police as well. A T-9 trying to hack the main cargo bay is going to be stung pretty hard....station lasers having reverb and all.

Mega-ships are available for those who like to raid assets of that sort. If such an attack on Carriers was possible then there'd be those who would specialise in it, from any game mode, with no repercussions (as they would be unknown to the owner) - which is probably why it isn't possible.

 

[Andruxich]

HiSEC sector idea looks interesting. But there are should NO engineers and lowered prices for trade and mining. Also make special offer Police-ATR patrol stratin g from 100 mil - month police up to 500 million for ATR responce team. (and it need to be lost in case of death from pvp, with returning 70% of price). Or sums like = Fullprice ATR ships(n pcs)+ 5 mils for pilot+10% of ships price. ATR megaship buses with evacuation from egde of bubble to Hi sec once in 3 time etc.

 

[Mcleansc]

that's why you have the option to play s solo/pg or jump out of the fight. if you find that you have a weaker ship. it is your decision whether you want to continue fighting or not.

I disagree. That's like sucker punching a 12 year old, clipping his heels as he tries to run away while saying he has a choice on if he continues to fight you or not. I tried escaping the 2nd time and he still got me.

Gankers usually have bespoke, highly engineered PVP ships. The game isn't solely a combat game so you're going to have trade and exploration ships with a compromise between protection and function (example is my mining Python. It's got a 6a shield and reactive armour, 2 med mining lasers and the rest beams and MC's and that's been destroyed before I've even broke mass lock in the past).

What would you rather: An empty open server that has full interaction with other players. Or a busy open server with limited interaction (people can choose whether they can attack or be attacked). Solo already exists, I think toggling PVP on or off in Open would improve the game as you'd get more traffic in Open. I've had great 1v1's (lost them all because I suck) in my previous save because I've been talking to people in Open and they want to PVP. I've even offered up my fully engineered PVE Conda against silent torp PVP'ers for them to see how effective their build is. Having weaker/newer players hide in Solo ruins both your own and their experience. A PVP toggle feature that is disabled for community events and CZ's would be a good compromise.

 

[Rebel Yell]

My squadron has no rules... As an anarchy supporter...

But, if the 'boys' in the other squadrons insist a legal exit is not, that is up to them, surely?

Of course, it just spares them from some embarassment or "need to explain" imho.

 

[Andruxich]

that's been destroyed before I've even broke mass lock in the past).

Jump to another system not to get masslocked by other ships.

 

[Bigmaec]

Oh dear, this thread (re-)escalated quickly.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Mega-ships are available for those who like to raid assets of that sort. If such an attack on Carriers was possible then there'd be those who would specialise in it, from any game mode, with no repercussions (as they would be unknown to the owner) - which is probably why it isn't possible.

Its an example of yet more unbalanced game assets really. Attacking an angry carrier would be far from easy and routine.

And what you say is a design issue- none of that is impossible to fix. For example FCs could log player aggressors, have secure storage (which would be unhackable but restricted in size), have more granular permissions, and so on.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Its an example of yet more unbalanced game assets really. Attacking an angry carrier would be far from easy and routine.

If it was possible then it could be abused.

And what you say is a design issue- none of that is impossible to fix. For example FCs could log player aggressors, have secure storage (which would be unhackable but restricted in size), have more granular permissions, and so on.

What good logging player aggressors when they may not have anything of their own to retaliate against?

.... or can never be instanced with, i.e. on a different platform, never play at the same time of day, play in a different game mode....?

 

[Rubbernuke]

If it was possible then it could be abused.

As in, be an actual gameplay element, totally unlike stealing from NPC ships then who can;t fight back?

What good logging player aggressors when they may not have anything of their own to retaliate against?

.... or on a different platform, or never play at the same time of day....?

You could move your FC to somewhere secret, or make them so they cannot be seen outside of your squadron (i.e. you have to be looking for them as they don't show on radar or maps)- i.e. reuse wing beacons.

The other is to keep your FC empty or use secure storage, or reply on the guns of your carrier.

If its a persistent asset then its going to get attacked like any other persistent asset like bases do for the BGS- except you have the option to move away.

 

[Robert Maynard]

As in, be an actual gameplay element, totally unlike stealing from NPC ships then who can;t fight back?

You could move your FC to somewhere secret, or make them so they cannot be seen outside of your squadron (i.e. you have to be looking for them as they don't show on radar or maps)- i.e. reuse wing beacons.

The other is to keep your FC empty or use secure storage, or reply on the guns of your carrier.

If its a persistent asset then its going to get attacked like any other persistent asset like bases do for the BGS- except you have the option to move away.

Depends what sort of game the gameplay is for - it doesn't seem like the type of game that we bought, given Frontier's persistent pan-modal invulnerable implementation of Carriers as one example.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Depends what sort of game the gameplay is for - it doesn't seem like the type of game that we bought, given Frontier's persistent pan-modal invulnerable implementation of Carriers as one example.

ED contains piracy, there is a big ship that could be pirated if you are careleless where you leave it.

Its nothing to do with destroying the FC, which is not possible. Its making small ships, BGS, skill etc count by leeching from wealthy players.